Michael Onyechi
Professor Michael Daum

ENC 1101
March 17, 2015

The Unrighteousness of War
War is unrighteous. There isn't a valid argument that can be made to suggest other wise. Yet the victors of war celebrate as if a righteous feat had been achieved. Yes, some good can come out as a result of war but do the good outweigh the bad? If Mo Tzu were asked that question, he would firmly say that the good most definitely does not outweigh the good. In his essay "Against Offensive Warfare," Mo Tzu argues through analogies how the act of offensive warfare is unrighteous and his points are valid. He argues that if certain acts were condemned, then why would they not be when on a larger scale? War is nothing more than acts that we condemn on a larger scale. Society condemns mass murders, especially killing innocent children, but when it's war, a blind eye is turned. Not to mention the exponential cost spent of war. Is it truly righteous to spend massive amounts of money funding a war that kills innocent men, women and children when there are plenty of children living in poverty in the United States of America? Mo Tzu argues that it is unrighteous for a man to enter another mans orchard to steal peaches and plums; everyone who hears about it will condemn him. But if a man takes another mans life he is more unrighteous because the injury to others, is greater. War causes greater injury to others so it too and the people who perpetrate it must be condemned. Instead of killing each other, alternatives should be found. That is the only righteous way to settle a dispute.
All atrocities should be condemned, no matter who is committing it. If a man walks into a church and throws a bomb into the church and kills everyone in it, that man would be condemned for what he did. However, if a plane or jet with "US ARMY" written on the side does the same exact thing, it is praised by that nation and it's people. "How people can condemn all of the small atrocities and yet support the same actions when they are conducted on a large scale by states and armies" asks Mo Tzu. War and conflict is the single greatest sources of all major atrocities. Is the end goal really worth the life of even one innocent man, woman, or child? Not only does war cause unnecessary mass amounts of collateral damage in the form of the loss of innocent, lives but it destroys important infrastructures such as schools, hospitals, markets, businesses, residents, and entire communities. Who is war actually hurting most? Observe the aftermath of a war and conflict, and it is evident that it is the innocent people who suffer the most. A nation can rebuild after conflict, but the people carry the burden of rebuilding their community while still bearing the emotional scars left behind from the whole ordeal. How many dead innocent children do there need to be before all war is condemned? Society writes those casualties off as "the cost of war" as if their lives did not matter or was somehow less significant than their own. There is no righteousness in achieving victory at the expense of even one innocent life. It is an atrocity that needs to be unequivocally condemned.
It is not only the people of the nations being destroyed by war are suffering but the people of the country doing the destroying are hurting too. There are 610,042 homeless people in the United States alone. Massive amounts of people live in poverty. Infrastructure such as roads, bridges, railroads, skyscrapers, and communities in low income areas are mostly old, deteriorating, and in need or repair, replacement, or complete renovation. The cost of living is going up, and the everyday person is struggling. Despite all that, wars are still funded. Billions upon billions are spent to fund wars, yet if just a fraction of that money was reinvested into the people and the community, it could improve the lives of all. No one would have to live in poverty and homeless people can be put in